h/t Breitbart; California has committed to moving forward with its job destroying climate policies, regardless of vocal complaints from business leaders.

California, at Forefront of Climate Fight, Won’t Back Down to Trump

…

“California can make a significant contribution to advancing the cause of dealing with climate change, irrespective of what goes on in Washington,” Mr. Brown said in an interview. “I wouldn’t underestimate California’s resolve if everything moves in this extreme climate denial direction. Yes, we will take action.”

…

When California enacted its climate reduction standards last year, it drew fierce criticism from state business leaders.

The bills “impose very severe caps on the emission of greenhouse gases in California, without requiring the regulatory agencies to give any consideration to the impacts on our economy, disruptions in everyone’s daily lives or the fact that California’s population will grow almost 50 percent between 1990 and 2030,” the California Chamber of Commerce said.

…

“California more than ever is strongly committed to moving forward on our climate leadership,” said Kevin de Leon, the leader of the State Senate. “We will not deviate from our leadership because of one election.”

…

“If the president-elect and his administration work to undermine our climate leadership, they will hurt our economy, “ Mr. de Leon said. “They will kill jobs. And ultimately, they will hurt the economy of the United States. We are 13 percent of the overall G.D.P.”

Still, California officials and environmentalists said climate measures in place here will undoubtedly be undercut if the Trump administration rolls back environmental policies put in place by President Obama.

“Our system works better — our cap-and-trade system and other ways of addressing climate change — if we have more company,” said Anthony Rendon, the speaker of the Assembly. “The more company we have, the better.”

Who do you think knows more about running a business and creating jobs, politicians or business leaders? Business leaders are sometimes happy to indulge in populist green washing, but Californian political plans go far beyond a little window dressing.

The desire for “more company” to join California’s job destroying climate plan is telling – if Californian political leaders really thought their plan made economic sense, they wouldn’t have to beg for company, other people would flock to join their climate crusade – probably all riding their eco-friendly flying pigs.

If green solutions made economic sense for the individual user, as opposed to economic sense for the air breathing community (like regulation against air pollution, f.ex. NOx), or sea fishing community (like regulations against over fishing), or pesticide using community (think evolution to glyphosate tolerance of weeds, regulation against destruction of weed genetic susceptibility to glyphosate)… then why would you need a mandate?

You need to force people to add electrostatic catchers to their smoke piles, because they have little interest in making their coal plants more complex and costly for the community. You don’t need to force people to burn coal at the highest possible temperature, as it makes the conversion to motive power more efficient, and the overall plant more economical.

Who do you think knows more about running a business and creating jobs, politicians or business leaders?

Business doesn’t exist to provide jobs. That’s a byproduct. If business can create a profit without creating jobs, so much the better. On the other hand, the politicians do have a vested interest in job creation.

What a plonker. Business is a deal between two parties. Politics is a party between two deals.

Business exists on trust. It is 99.9% of the time, fair and equitable. Politics exists on distrust. 99% of the time it’s a painful compromise.

Business generates money. Politicians spend money that doesn’t belong to them, but invariably profit from it anyway.

The business partnership operates between employees, employers, suppliers, customers and the taxman. Politics has no customers to satisfy, no suppliers it can’t screw, no employees it can’t persecute and it doesn’t answer to the taxman.

We are a long, long way off from dispensing with employees. Indeed, automated businesses provide self-employment opportunities for the industrious individual that conventional 9-5 employees could never offer.

And business is the lifeblood of the free, capitalist society we live in. The alternatives are, fully Communist N. Korea, partially Communist China, or former Communist Russia.

If you don’t like western business, on which civilised society was built, take your pick.

commieBob,
You have a funny idea of what democracy is. It does not mean that 51% get to oppress the other 49%. It means freedom from excessive government, and free enterprise is the hallmark of a real democracy. Unlike businesses, government produces nothing. It is a cost to society, but it is also a necessary evil. Just like fire – used in the right way it is indispensable, but if you let it get out of control it will consume everything leaving only destruction in it’s wake.

HotScot: Businesses exist to generate profit. Successful businesses distribute that profit fairly between employees, suppliers, customers and the taxman. I think you forgot the SARC comment off your entry. How about Apple and the other”successful companies hiding their profits in compex schemes so that they don’t pay tax in the country where the monoey is earned. How about looking after employees by shipping out to work to Asia so that they can make a few extra bucks. I think you are living in a dreamworld

commieBob, You have a funny idea of what democracy is. It does not mean that 51% get to oppress the other 49%. It means freedom from excessive government, and free enterprise is the hallmark of a real democracy.

Find me a dictionary definition that matches yours. :-)

One of the problems of democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The writers of the constitution foresaw that which is why they created the electoral college.

Germany was one of the most civilized countries on the face of the planet and yet it democratically voted Hitler to be dictator.

A plebiscite vote was held on August 19. Intimidation, and fear of the communists, brought Hitler a 90 percent majority. He was now, for all intents and purposes, dictator. link

It could happen here. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” link

Russia’s Berlin Wall “came down” because the façade was bad PR and no longer needed.

After Nixon’s administration sent a couple plane loads of gold to China showing his “good faith” prior to his visit, China phased out their “. . .roto running capitalist dogs” . . . and other cold war hold-over rhetoric.

Gorbachev, hailed a “hero for ending the cold war”, and his chic wife Raisa made the cocktail circuit in America with fellow socialists/Marxists/democrats aft er the wall came down. Russia has a democratic party, but their communist party still has a hand on the reins.

China “saw the light” and turned their entrepreneurs ‘loose’, but hardline communists still run the country.

China and Russia are looming as a couple of Trojan horses rolled into one.

Given the level of ” . . .Putin hacked the election nonsense”, it would appear the curtain is being pulled back on Act III.

Harrowsceptic: What’s not fair about doing what every you can to legally avoid taxes? Do you take advantage of every deduction available? If so, why do you consider it evil when others do the same.
As to wages, when you hire a plumber, do you look for the least expensive, or most expensive?
If you don’t go out of your way to hire the most expensive plumber, why do you condemn others for also looking for the lowest price workers?
The job does not belong to the worker, or to a country. It is the companies money, to spend how it pleases.
You are the perfect example of why democracy often leads to evil.

If a politician could get funded by big business and get elected without creating, ever, a single job, they would do it. Politicians take care of themselves. Idealists care about jobs, oh and the unemployed care about jobs.

Almost all politicians want to keep their positions of wealth and power which logically leads to… Progressive Democrats do not really want to create jobs. They all CLAIM they do, but they all pursue policies to do away with jobs? Why you may ask? Well, because people without jobs and reliant on government handouts vote overwhelmingly for democrats. Democrats want to stay in power, however you can’t stay in power if you tell everyone you are going to do away with their jobs, soooo…. wallah. Progressives have no problem in lying if it furthers the cause and keeps them in power. Look at Hillary…. she lied so much that she even tended to lie when the truth would have been more beneficial,

“ Democrats do not really want to create jobs. They all CLAIM they do, but they all pursue policies to do away with jobs? Why you may ask? Well, because people without jobs and reliant on government handouts vote overwhelmingly for democrats.”

The State of West Virginia is “proof positive” of the above accusation.

Up until two (2) years ago, the West Virginia State Legislature had been overwhelming controlled by Democrats for the previous seventy (70) years ….. and all during that time the population of West Virginia remained stagnated at approximately 1.8 million residents.

# of coal mining jobs in Appalachia:

Employment in bituminous peaked at 705,000 men in 1923, falling to 140,000 by 1970 and 70,000 in 2003.

In 1914 at the peak there were 180,000 anthracite miners; by 1970 only 6,000 remained.

When the coal mines were automated in the 1950’s, tens of thousands of WV’s coal miners lost their jobs ….. and most took their families and headed down “Hillbilly Highway” to the Carolinas to find work. And for every coal job lost, ……. there was like 4 or 5 “service sector” jobs also lost, and many of those people out-migrated also.

And the WV Democrats Politicians remained a happy, elated bunch because the “troughfeeders” left behind were loyal partisan that voted a “straight Democrat ticket”.

Government cannot create jobs other than govt jobs to do paperwork, etc. The economy creates jobs. If the govt creates “green jobs” they do so by spending consumer money, money which could have been spent creating or maintaining jobs. The product of those green energy jobs is to build essentially duplicate power generating capacity, since green power generators are unreliable (even with battery storage). Duplicating generation power capacity can almost double the cost of power, less the costs of fuel , which is pretty cheap these days. All that extra money to buy the same amount of power means that money cannot be used elsewhere, creating and maintaining jobs. The green jobs created to build the capacity are over and gone very shortly. The extra costs lasts forever. Even if those green power generators were reliable, it makes no economic sense to replace expensive equipment that doesn’t need replacing. Green unreliable energy capacity makes zero economic sense, no matter how it is viewed. If one wants to reduce emissions in an intelligent manner, one needs to understand current power technology, about which Gov Brown and the California govt is apparently ignorant. Molten salt reactors is what they should be aiming for.
Their propensity for earthquakes is no problem for these reactors. Their current program makes NO sense. They are rushing hysterically to install power generation crap, rather than thoghtfully waiting a few years for a revolutionary power technology. And California prides itself on its “technological expertise.” Yeah, right. A govt that can’t shoot straight, or think straight, either.

The Greens of California are not building green power. They force the close of Caifornia power plants and destroy damns, creating power and water crisises They are buying all they can get from Oregon, Washington, Montana, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and even Third World Mexico, They drain the reserves of all these States, When any single State PUC. decides it cannot safely sell any more reserve power, the whole teetering house of cards will collapse as all are at the edge of this jury rigged, house of cards, and cannot replace any single states reserves. Meanwhile, California continues to hemorage jobs and businesses.

Governments excel at creating “government” jobs with salaries that are ultimately paid for by the private sector. Government does very poorly at creating private sector jobs compared to free enterprise in a free and open market.

Many government jobs are parasitic they rely on wealth creation which they then syphon off to continue to exist but put nothing of use back into society. The best a government worker can do is be symbiotic putting back as much into the community as has been taken. Government jobs are never wealth creators.

Governments are almost never able or willing to create jobs. This is because jobs are regulated by taxation. Taxation usually poorly spent by the government – partly because it is not their money and therefore has no personal value to the spenders – but mainly on government projects which few people really need or intend to use. These join the ranks of monuments which may be nice but suck up scarce resoiurces from tax payers.

The best way to increase employment – cant claim it is creating employment because taxation has destroyed the potential employment already – is to cut taxation – preferably by a large percentage. It means that many services must be carried out by the tax payer themselves but it will cost less – much less – to do these things for oneself because the bureaucracy does not need to be fed.

Ironical isnt it. Suggest the reading of Milton Friedman to see how the above can be done.

If you mean the blackout which hit SA on Xmas eve/day. Apparently it was caused by a lightning strike and some commenters in the “Australian ” newspaper reject the inference that it is related to that state’s green energy policies . however a comment from a person called “brad” seems very sensible and relevant:

“A lightning strike causing a blackout is not unusual anywhere but if there is enough capacity in the local grid then power should not only be restored very quickly, it should also be automatic. The issue that has plagued SA for months is that without adequate base-load power feeding the grid, the current generating capacity cannot support a single point of failure from any power source. It all must work, all the time or Jay Weatherill’s power policies will just keep adversely affecting consumers.”

Xmas eve and day (both very hot) had exceptionally low wind power in South Australia (around 50 MW on Xmas day), so paradoxically that appalling outcome for the main driver of the glorious “Transition” (pause for ritual prostration) probably exonerates it from any blame for that power outage. As the heatwave fell during a demand lull there cannot have been a shortage of firm capacity.

The whole point of the O’Bummer years in office was to ship jobs overseas; making treaties that encouraged globalization. Democrats had a vested ideological interest that decreased jobs in America. Republicans are interested in creating jobs. Democrats have not been. So your statement that “politicians do have a vested interest in job creation” is wrong.

Politicians do not have a ‘vested’ interest in jobs. If they could get elected and remain in office without creating a single job, they’d do it. The American political system does not have a vested interest in creating jobs, politicians ‘concern’ for jobs is a byproduct of telling the people what they want to hear to get them elected. There are multiple examples of political entities creating jobs, in fact most ancient political systems created lots of ‘jobs’, but it wasn’t because they felt the responsibility to provide ‘living wages’ to their people. It was to create the monuments (Pyramids), military works (Grand Canal in China) , etc. I doubt that any ancient ruler worried a bit about whether he was creating jobs for his people or not.

In theory our elected representatives ‘should’ care about creating jobs for the good of the people, in reality they do not any more than all people are ‘equal’ in a communist society. It’s lip service.

Businesses exist to create a profit, no one starts a business to break even, or lose money. A business creates or sells a product or service which people value enough to pay for. A product must be designed and manufactured. Materials and ingredients must be procured, labor must be employed. Materials and finished products must be transported, goods and services must be advertised, packaging or literature must be produced. A building and/or factory must be bought or leased, machinery, furniture, computers, etc purchased. Electricity, gas, and water must be paid for, as well as telephone and internet service. Lawyers must be hired to dot the “i’s” and cross the “t’s”, accountants must figure out payroll, taxes, etc. A huge number of people are involved in the production and selling of any product or service, however small. And the profit which a company earns is either spent to buy other products, which others produce, invested back into the company itself, or deposited in a bank, where it is loaned out to others who buy or create products or services.

The private sector economy creates value, which is distributed into profits, wages, investments, and taxes. The state does not exist to create jobs or value, but merely to facilitate the private sector in doing so.

Most people seem to have only a faint understanding of economics. To be economical in something is to get the greatest effect for the least amount of effort. A company earns as much profit as it can for the goods it sells, while consumers pay as little as they can for the goods they buy. An employer pays his staff as little as he can for the work they do, the staff do as little work as they can for the money they are paid. Left alone, or nearly alone, a local or national economy exists in a self-perpetuating balance.

Things go wrong with economies when unnatural forces try to push the balance in their favor. Greed, in moderation, is not a bad thing; most people satisfy their greed by working harder, thinking of new products or services to sell. People go to university or learn a trade in order to earn more than they otherwise would, and though they might not like to admit it, wanting to earn more is a form of greed. But some people are too greedy. They want more value than what selling their products and services in an open marketplace can produce. The best way for them to get this added value is with the help of the state.

A larger business can make deals with the state for contracts, or enacting rules and regulations which hinder competition. Anyone ever wonder why almost no new large industries have been created in developed countries in recent years? How many new car, aircraft, or ship building companies have been created in the last 50 years? How many were created a century ago before countless thousands of pages of rules and regulations were legislated and printed? Rules and regulations are often less about keeping people, products, and the environment safe than they are about protecting vested interests from competition.

With no new large industries, and fewer smaller industries and businesses being created, less value is being added to the economy. The state does not create value, it consumes value. When the state consumes for value than the economy can produce, things don’t end well. In the private sector, as little as possible is spent to create a product or service, in the public sector, as much as possible is spent to pay for a product or service. In the private sector, workers are paid according to the value they add. In the public sector workers are simply paid according to seniority, most are paid more than the value of the services they provide.

As the owner of a company myself, my biggest expense is tax, followed by payroll. When my tax bill is increased, I must compensate for it somehow. I must either reduce my own pay, and spending, which affects the businesses I buy things from. Or I can cut the pay of my workers, or reduce my workforce. Or I can raise prices, and then my customers end up paying the increase in my taxes. If I cannot earn enough profit for the rather large amount of effort it takes to run a business, I might as well not bother. If my workers will not work for me for lower wages, or fewer hours, and customers refuse to pay higher prices for my goods, the only options are to shut down, or outsource.

One of the fundamental things about taxation that most people realize is that it is never progressive. Most people believe that those who earn more should pay more in tax, and because of this, tax rates are progressive. But it impossible to isolate the effect of any tax to any particular income group. A rich person will pay a large amount of tax every year. But the cost of this tax is compensated for by the methods i previously mentioned. A tax on any part of the economy is tax on every part of the economy, and it is as simple as that.

If your own tax was raised by 10%, what would you do? You would either spend 10% less, or save 10% less. In either case, you are passing on the cost of your tax to the people you buy goods and services from, or your bank, which then has that much less to lend or invest.

The greediest of people are those who make their money without producing anything at all, or providing any labor which adds value. Jerry Brown and his friends in the state and national governments are these kind of people. They and their friends earn their bread by the sweat of another person’s brow. They spend vast amounts of money, but the value they get in return is universally less than what they spend.

The most interesting thing about the balance in economics is that no matter how hard or how far one tries to push the balance in one’s favor, the economy eventually forces itself back into balance. Unfortunately, the more it is pushed one way, the further it will swing toward the negative as it seeks balance. If California cannot create the value it needs to fund the state, the state will borrow the difference, and put the screws to businesses and taxpayers. This will push things more and more out of balance, and when that “invisible hand” pushes back, it’s going to hurt.

But, but, but… wealthy people have these big vaults of money and gold and all they do with it in roll around in it! I’ve seen pictures! The purpose of government is to take that unused money and give it to people who don’t have enough! Duh!

No they have a vested interested in passing laws that control the masses and generate more taxes so they can stay in power. CommieBob needs to move to a Communist paradise like Cuba or North Korea and see just how many jobs those fellow ruling Communists have created, as well as how great their freedoms are.

Mr Penrose
You should visit UK. 51.8% is imposing dictatorship on remaining on 48.2%, depriving them of the multitude of rights and freedoms, you might say way of life, they enjoyed for 40 years, rights and freedom that anyone below age of 50 can’t remember any other. Those rights will be taken apparently away overnight sometime in the early or mid 2019. That can’t be democracy. Democracy should be not curtailing but expanding on the freedoms of individuals.

What ‘rights’ will those 48.2% be deprived of? What, precisely, will they lose? Indeed, what did they ‘have’ that wasn’t derived by pure deception over those 40 years? I don’t recall being asked to consent to being ruled by a foreign power. Did you?
How did people manage pre the EU? What were they ‘deprived’ of prior to EU membership?
Claims that leaving the EU will seriously affect anyone in any material way are vastly over stated. If people love the EU so much then they have plenty of opportunity to go where it best serves them – conversely those that don’t like Britain or the British way of life shouldn’t come to Britain.
Strange how so many people still flock to the UK despite our voting to leave the EU, isn’t it?

Hi Dave
Just for a start freedom to travel through Europe without applying for visa every time, to work without restriction anywhere in an area with a half billion people, to purchase or sell goods anywhere including property in that huge market without any restrictions. Academic institutions have worries of their own.
Rich people will be able to do whatever they did as before, but it is ones on the bottom half of the social scale that will be hit hardest. But all these you could dismiss as material concerns. As I see it, there is far more important matter,
The first half of 20th century Europe was a continent of tensions conflicts, it caused two world wars with millions of people killed, among them possibly hundreds of thousands of British. Most of countries, soon remaining members of EU (except Sweden, Spain and Portugal, may be someone else) have suffered hostile foreign invasions, but since the UK didn’t, I often find talking to my friends and neighbours in the UK that thought never enters their mind. The EEC (W. Churchill contemplated the United States of Europe) was formed to create cooperation instead of conflicts and combats of the past. As a result the second half of the 20th century was characterised by peace and prosperity.
Now you might say that it is other European countries, and not the UK’s business how they are going to treat each other. I don’t have anything about repatriating laws and regulations to the UK parliament, but my fear is, since the UK has become a corner stone of the past European project, that once that crucial stone is pulled out the whole edifice might crumble.
I lived in the UK for 40 years, my kids were born and grown up here, so I’m attached to it far more than to my ex fatherland (ex Yugoslavia), which at one time was a union not dissimilar to the EU.
That union was much older (formed in 1918-19) than the EU, constituent parts were much closer than the EU countries, people were of same race, spoke dialects of the same language, to any less informed outsider they were the same people for all means and purposes. Then economically the most advanced Slovenia decided to pull out for mostly economic (budgetary) and some political reasons, then whole country disintegrated through conflicts and in some areas civil war, out of six members of federation only two (Croatia and Bosnia/Hercegovina) had war on their territory, the other four dissolved rest of the union peacefully.
No I am not saying that will happen to EU, or that Germany and France will have yet another go at each other, but wars in the continental Europe are not strangers.
After all that long rumble you are free ignore all of the above as a sour grapes of an immigrant ‘remoaner’ but still paying substantial income tax (as do the other three remaining members of my family) and never have been unemployed or hospitalised.
Have a Happy New Year.

vukcevic,
Being from the US, I don’t have a dog in that race. But I don’t see the EU as a particularly democratic institution. I can understand why there is a large number of Britons that don’t like the idea of being ruled by an unelected group of bureaucrats with little voice themselves. I’m not up on all the subtle ins and outs, but to this outsider looking in, it seems that leaving the EU will produce a net increase in real freedom for the Brits. I’m sure there will be some costs and disadvantages, but freedom is never free.

Mr. Penrose
If EU was created after the WWI rather than the afterWWII with or without Britons, we don’t know what Europe or even the world would look like, but for sure it would have been a very different place.
For decade or two British unsuccessfully applied to join the then EEC but general De Gaul used a veto to stop it.
As far as I can see it the EU has greatly benefited from British presence, but the post Brexit EU might have been safer and more stable proposition if Britain never joined.
I believe that dismissing the European historic perspective is a big mistake.
Happy New Year

Re unelected bureaucrats:
All of those bureaucrats are appointed by the elected presidents and prime ministers of the member countries.
Would you say that most of the Trump’s cabinet as appointed by the president-elect from outside political echelons are unelected bureaucrats?
I don’t see great deal of difference.

If the EU is such a successful and compelling model, why has no-one else in the world copied it? Can you imagine Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam etc. submitting to rules on written by a faceless committee in Taiwan or Macao. Is it impossible to trade and interact with neighborsing countries without being part of an empire. Of course not. The EU is a reincarnated chimera of the third Reich and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. After the war France punished Britain for saving them from the Na3is because they never wanted to be saved – they were Na3is themselves. It’s high time we told the French where to go.

“The EU is a reincarnated chimera of the third Reich and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.”

False: these were created by military conquests, the EEC i.e. EU is a voluntary and peacefully created union.
No, the EU is not hugely successful or very compelling model but kept its member states for 60 years not only out of conflict but in a close cooperation. For the for ever squabbling, quarrelling and often warring nations of Europe that is more than good enough. The irony is that on March 25, 2017 when the Article 50 maybe invoked the EU will be 60 years old to the day.
Continental Europe is far better and a safer place with than without the EU. When something better is proposed I certainly would be in favour of it. Europeans are at their greatest when they come together, btw. they shown that by creating the United States of America possibly the most successful model politically, economically, military etc, etc, but again not many are in any great urgency to copy it.

Hi Clipe
It appears to me that the number of the WUWT readers who commented on the Brexit have come to a 97% consensus that Brexit is good and the EU is bad. My attitude is to oppose consensus of any kind.
Anthropogenic global warming is nonsense, any warming is good, CO2 is great, solar and the Earth’s magnetic cycles are synchronised and drive the global climate’s natural variability.
Keep well and a Happy New Year

Politicians don’t create jobs. They take money from people who do, give it to people who didn’t earn it, and then point to the guy that actually made it and say, ‘See? HE wasn’t going to give it to you.’

A successful entrepreneur, on the other hand, DOES create jobs. And good ones cultivate a healthy business climate, that works well for everybody.

The greedy miser (while they do exist) is actually a rarity, although it’s a popular fiction among those who prey upon business.

Businesses use work – ie jobs – to create things that sell. Each transaction creates wealth from those things which were made, Jobs are the means, not the end and business does those things necessary to generate and maximize wealth..Under whatever conditions exist.

These days we have businesses that are raking in profits by the giga dollars and they don’t make any kind of product. They do get some customers to walk under trains and off cliffs, but who cares so long as they make a profit doing it.

To the extent that California has already gone up this blind alley of eco-freako-nonsense, I would encourage them in a fiendish way to do so even more diligently. The sooner California’s economy triggers a 10-pointer on the Richter Scale, the sooner a more sane approach can be implemented.

Probably won’t use Climate zaniness except in my “rebuttal” list. Which reminds me, I must also take out my own invention “Climate premature ejaculation” – an article or comment that has the messily splurted “overwhelming evidence” phrase which is then followed by zero evidence.

chaamjamal,
Perhaps California knows that their current policies will chase citizens from the state of California. This will help towards another policy imbedded in Agenda 21 which instructs that populations must be limited because of the effect on Gaia. Also as people move out, the land left behind can be reverted to its natural state thus making the wilf flora and fauna increasingly “sustainable”. Fortunately California citizens do not need to jump into the sea – well except for the current governor maybe.

Think Im crazy? Well read my blog about my home town where these things are happening while we speak.

California Democrat politicians really don‘t give a hoot if their current policies will chase citizens and businesses from the state of California ….. simply because they know for-a-fact that …… “California is too big to fail”.

“…as people move out, the land left behind can be reverted to its natural state…..”. Much of Southern California can revert to its natural desert condition from its artificial state. ”Tis what happens when politicians don’t support infrastructure growth to match the demand.

And the ousted citizens move up to Oregon, bringing their votes, and locking up port states with fossil fuel bans, from the local level on up – it’s what I would call a conspiracy to destroy a vital industry and deprive the country of an essential resource.

Correct, and it’s not just the Liberals (who initiated the Green Energy Act), along with the two other political parties and the majority of the educated class they all believe. If you don’t believe you are nothing but an irrelevant denier. The alarmist narrative has legs.

Sorry to hear this Anthony, it seems that California like Scotland is a hotbed of climate madness and that both these areas will be dragged kicking and screaming behind the science – until some unknown date in the future, when they finally realise there is no choice but to accept it.

When the Scot’s realise the SNP can’t deliver on their insane promise of independence, they will be kicked out, never to return. The tragedy is, I like the concept of an independent Scotland. It was just led by the madman Salmond and his hangers on. He promoted it in the wrong way, at the wrong time and Screwed it up for several lifetimes.

The loony left SNP had one shot, and they blew it. Thankfully. Salmond turned a peaceful conversion into a combative war, amongst the people of Scotland and failed to win the hearts of the true Scot’s.

Withdraw with dignity, self-appointed King of Scotland Salmond! But you won’t.

Wallace lives on and you will be forgotten, as will your political spawn. Your days are numbered, but Scotland will survive your treachery.

Tragically, Scotland is rich in on-land fossil fuels quite apart from the North Sea. Coal, shale oil (was once a leading producer of oil from shale by mining), shale gas, coal-bed methane. With a small population. an independent Scotland that allowed exploitation of those resources would be a rich country. What a shame that it won’t be happening as long as the madness rules.

The Scottish National Party does not want independence. The Scottish National Party wants Scotland to become an integrated part of the North Sea Region of the European Union. This is due to the large salaries paid to politicians becoming Eurocrats who are selected not elected (no worrying about voters), and the huge tax free pensions paid to those politicians. At no stage has Sturgeon said she wants independence for Scotland without linking it to being part of the EU and the Euro-zone.

Nope. Actually, yes, but not in the way you’re thinking, as “climate change” policy will soon become pretty much an incidental thing that they don’t care much about as the new immigrants and their plenitude of grown up anchor babies take over the CA political system with one goal: redistribution of wealth to themselves. Their plans for seizing property and assets won’t be constitutional, so there may be a bit of a conflict with the feds. Or maybe CA will just become its own nation.

The best way for the state of California to minimize human caused climate change within the borders of the state is to ban all human beings from the state including those who might fly over the state or be in waters controled by the state Everyone must remember tc shut off all utilities to their property before leaving the state for good. By brething all humans are net emmiters of CO2 and since governor Brown thinks that CO2 is bad for the state. all sources of CO2 should be eliminated ASAP. Please help governor Brown in his quest to rid his state of all people.

Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
The eco-militant EPA’s own figures note that slashing America’s CO2 emissions, will prevent less than 0.03 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming 85 years from now!

All that pain – destroying jobs and impairing human welfare – for such little gain!

Virtue-signalling politicians “riding their eco-friendly flying pigs” – a far more dangerous threat to life on earth than any minuscule and arguably beneficial, ‘global warming’ would ever do!

Now that’s interesting. Politifact examnined a recent statement of Jerry Brown’s, where he says that PARTLY BECAUSE of their climate regulations, their state is enjoying a better business environment than Texas.

Politifact calls it “partly true,:” based solely on a couple of quarters of economic data without every addressing the claim it’s “partly due to climate regulation.”

According to this, though, the businesses of California aren’t in step with Gov Moonbeam!

If Trump manages to eliminate most of the regulations which kill business development, and California retains or adds business and job killing environmental regulations while increasing taxes and energy cost companies will leave California. It may take a few years, but hopefully somebody will wake up before it is too lake. If electricity and transportation fuels cost much more in one state than nearby states business migration will happen, it always does.

Crispin, I hope they do it soon so other people can re-populate it and revive it. It is hard to grasp the fact that Cal is run by just three population centers, and the rest is actually very conservative . It must be frustrating as all heck for them.

The problem is that Californians leave California too, and take their insane policy demands with them. Trump doesn’t just need to build a wall around Mexico, he needs to build one around California, too.

MarkG, so true. Californians leave their state to live in neighboring states without California’s problems. Then starts the downfall of the neighboring states. Californians tend to bring their problems with them. The try to make their new home just like California. They remember everything about California except how to get back there.

“Still, California officials and environmentalists said climate measures in place here will undoubtedly be undercut if the Trump administration rolls back environmental policies put in place by President Obama.”

I’m under the impression States still have the authority to enact rules, regulations and policies regardless of what the federal government does. Wait a second, hasn’t California legalized the sale and possession of Marijuana even though it’s strictly prohibited by the federal government? I’m sure they can carry on with their climate policies with no problems…

“I’m sure they can carry on with their climate policies with no problems…”

The sad part is California’s efforts to reduce CO2 won’t make a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things, as far as atmospheric temperature is concerned. California is cutting while China and India are building more coal-fired powerplants.

If Brown is successful, he will kill the California economy, and not accomplish anything as far as reducing world CO2 levels. They could accomplish much more for California by doing nothing. But you can’t tell Democrats anything.

California is free to do what it wants. They will realize the errors of their ways eventually. Probably about the time California drops from producing 13 percent of US GDP to about six percent after they have run all their businesses off.

The year 2017 is going to be very exciting and entertaining for some of us. :)

I’m not a fan of California’s vision of climate control or whatever it is they’re proposing. I have family in California and I don’t want their policies to negatively impact their lives. My comment was meant to highlight the power states have in governing things in their best interest. This attack on Trump and what his administration may do is nothing more than fear mongering and a distraction from what states can do to undermine the prosperity of the citizens. I live in upstate New York, aka Nannie State Central.

“During the Obama years, more small businesses failed than were created.”
..
However, facts seem to make this statement laughable………
…
…http://www.factcheck.org/2015/07/obamas-numbers-july-2015-update/
…
…
“Business Start-ups — New business establishments are opening at an accelerating pace. The Bureau of Labor Statistics counted 224,000 “births” of new establishments in the three months ending last September, the most recent period on record. That’s an increase of just under 20 percent compared with the quarter prior to Obama’s first inauguration.

Meanwhile the number of business establishments shutting down permanently — business “deaths” — has gone down by just over 20 percent. The most recent figure is for the third quarter of 2013, because the BLS must wait a year before counting any shutdown as a permanent closing. Establishment birth and death figures are adjusted to compensate for seasonal variations.

John F. Hultquist,
Nail/manicure shops and cell phone stores have opened all over the place, as well as small, sketchily maintained and poorly lit convenience stores, staffed mostly by immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and South Asia.

Taco trucks are quickly reaching saturation levels throughout the Southwest, but the better ones could be ranked as a boon to mankind.

It doesn’t make sense to look at raw economic numbers, especially when making comparisons. You need to look at them on a per capita basis. If you do, I think you’ll find the business creation/loss numbers not nearly as rosy.

On your own State side ( secretary of Labor) you can read:
“NOTE: Persons marginally attached to the labor force are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached, have given a job-market related reason for not currently looking for work. Persons employed part time for economic reasons are those who want and are available for full-time work but have had to settle for a part-time schedule. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Quelle: Bureau of Labor Statistics” https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

The true number of unemployed in the US at the end of 2014 was not 5.6 per cent, but 11.2 per cent. A figure higher than in Germany and the northern EU, but lower than in Spain, Italy and Greece. The United States is a state in which, to a large extent, there is no obligation to report. Any migratory movements of job seekers can not be quantified, as in red China. So that the true number of job seekers or those who have already given up this search can be much higher. Any figures that override the number of successes exceeding the number of jobs or alarms are therefore to be viewed with a large portion of skepticism, since the detection shows very great deficiencies. One might almost say that the similarities to climate research can not be overlooked. Its a huge different between the “U3” and the “U6” number.

Eight years ago, 25% of new businesses failed the first year. Now, after an atrocious attack policy-wise on small businesses (regulations and Obamacare being the primary factors), 50% of small businesses fail the first year.

Add to that the fact that during Obama’s dismal administration, US GDP has never risen above 3%, galloping.

And neither of those numbers are laughable.

But the bottom line is that, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 94,000,000 people in the US are out of the labor force. This Labor Participation and is lower than it’s been since the 70’s (When the next-worst president in history, Jimmy Carter, got involved with the economy and destroyed it).

“staffed mostly by immigrants from the Indian subcontinent and South Asia.”

Of course those businesses are staffed mostly by the above said immigrants …… and that is because the US Government provided the money for those immigrants to purchase those businesses.

Thus the US Government is the actual creator of those NEW “small businesses” which are not actually NEW businesses, but actually OLD businesses with NEW owners.

There is a small Motel here in the town where I live and during the past 15+- years, me thinks there has been at least five (5) different Asian immigrant families that were/are the proprietors of said Motel business.

Yeah, those liberal provinces and states are just job killers. Lol – that’s where much of the job growth is occurring. Tell me about all the great new companies formed in the last 30-40 years in red states? I’ll give you Chik-a-Fil. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Costco – all in blue states.

Don’t even know what they do these days. They can’t even give away the latest version of Windows. I heard they got into spyware and advertising?

> Facebook,

Advertising and cat pictures.

> Amazon, Costco

Cut-price retail.

Just imagine what we could have had if some of the talent that’s gone into selling advertising and cheap books or sending cat pictures around the world had gone into something innovative instead. But that’s what twenty years of artificially low interest rates gets you.

In March, April and May the people of California are going to understand the pension crisis. Currently the unfunded liability is $1.4 trillion, up 45% in just two years. … your city is going to have its CalPERS mandatory contributions go up … To accomplish this, cops will not be hired, potholes not fixed and taxes will have to go up.

*** Add to that the minimum wage increase and … your city may already be on the cusp of bankruptcy. The City of Simi Valley last year passed a “balanced Budget”. It later came out through Councilman Becerra that balanced in the case of Simi Valley means a $1 million operational deficit.

“…California will be forced to pay billions more in pension contributions for government employees after the state retirement system’s decision to lower its assumed rate of return. … By fiscal year 2024 the annual tab will increase at least $2 billion from current levels.

While it’s prudent, the lower investment return goal makes California “fiscally more vulnerable” if there’s an economic downturn, said Gabriel Petek, an analyst at S&P Global Ratings in San Francisco. “It’s putting more of an element of risk in the state’s fiscal structure.” …

California’s revenue is volatile because it draws a large share of taxes from wealthy residents whose incomes are tied closely to the stock market. The top 1 percent of earners — who tend to own shares — accounted for nearly half of the state’s personal income-tax collections in 2014. Voters in November approved a 12-year extension of higher income tax rates on the rich, deepening the reliance on their fortunes. …

This is why we have a federal system with state sovereignty — so not everyone has to jump off the same cliff at the same time. The rest of us just have to pay to clean up the mess California makes of itself.

I don’t want any of my tax money going to pay off Jerry Brown’s delusional California boondooggle. Californians should pay their own bills. A good start at paying their bills would be for them to deport about 4 million of the illegal aliens living there and feasting of the largesse of California and U.S. taxpayers.

Illegals and their millions of anchor baby offspring, as well as those amnestied in 1986, have taken over the state. Asking CA to deport “4 million illegals” is asking them to deport themselves. Not going to happen.

For the same reason the rest of us paid to bail out Wall Street after the housing bubble — to big to fail. I agree it’s obnoxious, but it’s still better than all the states destroying their industrial bases with stupid energy policies at the same time. Think of California as the US “defense in depth” against liberal/progressive rot. It is better that all the crazy ideas be tried in California, to spare the rest of us and provide a reminder of why those ideas are crazy. But we will end up with the bill. I suspect Jerry Brown will end up the a Nobel Peace Prize.

‘Climate Reduction Standards” If we could somehow stop the global climate from changing then we would still have extreme weather events and sea level rise because that is part of the world’s current climate. If we could somehow, we could reverse sea level rise by bringing on the next ice age before Mother Nature had planned but that would cause a new buildup of ice sheets on land. It is hard to grow crops on land that is covered with thousands of feet of ice. To date Mankind has been unable to stop one weather event let alone change global climate.

Considering which models have been able to predict today’s global climate and which models have been unsuccessful, it is evident that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record and plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the change in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the torposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture cliams that the surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer because of our atmosphere because of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by LWIR absorbing heat trapping gasses. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of such heat trapping gases but because the glass reduces cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse. So too on Earth. As derived from first principals, the surface of the Earth is 33 degrees C warmer because gravity limits cooling by convection. 33 degrees C is what is calculated and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. There is no room for an additonal radiant greenhouse effect. A radiant greenhouse effect has yet to be observed in a greenhouse, on Earth, on Venus, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect does not exist which renders the AGW conjecture as unsupported science fiction.

The governor’s efforts may serve to help to reduce California’s population by devistating the economy but it will not serve to modify our climate in any way or protect California from the raveges of extreme weather events

13. “No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems — of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.”
Thomas Sowell
(from an Glenn Reynolds post)

And even if they were interested in solving our problems, it’s not something the government is equipped to do. It would be like trying to use a sledge hammer to thread a needle; it is the wrong tool for the job. WE need to solve our own problems, both individually and as a society. But make no mistake, since we are a flawed species, we will never have a perfect system. Paradise will always be out of our reach. The best we can achieve is a system where everybody has an opportunity to go as far as they can with the skills, abilities, and ambition they were born with. And the primary thing that system requires is a removal of artificial barriers to such opportunity. Yes, there will be unequal outcomes, but that is because although we are all born with the same rights, we are not in fact, identical.

If California wants to impose these rules they should be able to do so. They should not expect other states to accept the same methods the operation their states. I believe and hope that the Trump administration will reduce the EPA’s authority, roll back its rules, and return much of its activities to the states where it rightly belongs. Then California can prove the value of their actions to enlist other states and countries to join them.

California’s loss will be other states gain. I meet many people here in Las Vegas who have migrated away from the insanity that is California. As long as the rest of the nation does not have to bailout the California’s stupidity, I’m fine with them doing whatever they want. That is why our federated republic must remain. New York State bans fracking. That’s OK, because it gives the other states more opportunity. The Left is absolutely great at wealth destruction. Just think what the NYS fracking ban has done to real estate values for those properties that contain the potential for hydrocarbon extraction. That is wealth destruction writ large.

We Love You! You will find our arms open for you, our business climate friendly, our government supportive, our agencies helpful, and most of all our people welcoming, friendly, and eager to work.
Once you come here, you’ll wonder what the heck made you hesitate so long! Don’t need to look for the end of the rainbow anymore, it’s right here! Come on and git you some!!!

A new study {http://www.spectrumlocationsolutions.com/pdf/Businesses-Leave-California-.pdf } seeks to quantify the trend of companies fleeing California and determine how, and to what extent, it is caused by California’s hostile business environment. The study was conducted by Joseph Vranich, … {who} searched for what he calls “California divestment events” — business decisions to shun the state. These come in three types: companies that left the state entirely; companies that expanded in other states rather than in California; and a few companies that had planned to grow in the Golden State but changed their minds.

Vranich found records of 1,510 divestment events occurring in California ,\between 2008 and 2014, but that number is an incomplete accounting of the situation. “Experts in site selection generally agree that at least five events fail to become public knowledge for every one that does,” he writes, concluding that the real total is probably more than 9,000 divestment events for this period.

Even that estimate may not tell the full story. Small businesses are less likely to get media coverage when they relocate, but they are the biggest category of divestment events. …

A lot of Californians have already taken Texas up on that invitation. It’s like the Okies moving to California to escape the 1930’s Dust Bowl in the central U.S., only in reverse. Now, the people are escaping the expensive wilderness of California for the greener pastures back East.

Before my retirement, I was an employee of a California based oil company. About three years ago that company’s CEO saw the handwriting on the wall. He decided to spin off all of the company’s California assets, and move its headquarters to Texas. The California spin-off company promptly lost 90% of its value. The parent company, now with most of its assets in Texas and overseas is doing well, despite the currently depressed oil prices. The stock price of the California spin-off company has never recovered.

The insane anti energy/anti business policies of the California loonies will ensure that many more companies will make similar moves. My heart breaks for the rural and industrial areas of California that are out-voted by the lunatics in San Fransico and LA. These delusional people don’t care that they are destroying the livelihood millions of their fellow citizens. Even if the CO2 theory of “climate change” were true, the anti business policies that they are pushing would have no measurable effect. The fact that these voters, and the policy makers whom they elect, know that their policies are both destructive to modern civilization, and ineffective in their supposed intent, indicates that these voters and policy makers are either incredibly stupid, or just plain bonkers. I fear for the future of the formerly great state of California.

Texas, on the other hand, is a great state for business. The difference between Texas and California is that the crazy progressives in Houston and Austin do not yet outnumber the sane working class people in the vast interior of the state. During my most recent residence in Texas, I was unfortunate enough to live in the congressional district of Shiela Jackson Lee, so I know that Texas is vulnerable to the insanity that infects California. I hope every good Texan fights this infection to his, or her last breath, and I am confident that the Texas spirit will prevail.

And after we win the war we should sell it to China. If we were to declare California to be a manufactured good, and let China pay on the installment plan this would eliminate the trade deficit for the foreseeable future.

Lets stop kidding ourselves. Each faction, Greens, business, public is in this for themselves. Each will happily destroy the others to obtain a victory. I say a pox on all your houses. There is plenty of money to fund Green politicians so they can act without concern from business or the public in general. Business can cares less about jobs if it can turn a profit with less labor. The public needs money and it is politically correct to put the demand in the form of jobs. Whether jobs are necessary is of no importance.

All of these parties will put the knife into one another as circumstances dictate in the struggle to achieve their ambitions. “The public be damned!” is an old adage attributed to William Henry Vanderbilt. He is reputed to have said, “What does the public care for the railroads except to get as much out of them for as small a consideration as possible”.

Fair enough, but what about “What does business care for the politicians except to get as much out of them for as small a consideration as possible?” or “What do the politicians care for the public except to get as much out of them for as small a consideration as possible?” and so on.

California politicians will run the public into the ground in the struggle for Green money and the public will go gladly chasing moonbeams. The system has nothing to do with democracy.

California government plays bluff-and-see. The bluff an absurd regulation, then see if anyone complies. If no one does, the law is withdrawn. Battery car mandate anyone? That came and die waiting for a breakthrough in battery technology which has not come along for 120 years. Now, they can decide if they want to get rid of all state beef and dairy and import it all as methane reduction in cows is not possible.

The California “brand” is faltering. Like many who cannot think beyond their one and only success, they keep returning to the same theme expecting a renewed interest. The United States of America has just moved beyond the California mystique and they aren’t buying it any more. The current retiring generation was the one that believed in California but unfortunately changed it’s politics. Many moved there, and many were successful, others stepped into a rat race but they couldn’t see an end for them, so they left or want to leave. It was exciting, but now that they know they can’t keep it up, they want out. Those who can are either heading to the north of the state with retirement money, or heading to Idaho, Texas, Colorado and Utah. Jerry is a retread but he has managed to hold air. California is out of ideas politically. The only thing that keeps it going is the critical mass achieved in the key industries over the growth years, and those who are in them will persevere only to enrich others more than themselves. As those cores of energy get sapped by foreign competition, dwindling brain power, or business friendly neighbors, they will decline. I like California and made a living there for many years, but the excitement, the beauty, and the energy does not work for people who cannot buy a house when making good money, are afraid of their children attending the schools so, if they can, they pay for private, or having to pay top dollar for every frigging thing there is. It gets old. And the taxes, fees, surcharges, and levies of all kinds; when will they learn? Everything is mortgaged. As an example of how mistakes are made and the results of spendthrift governments, there will be much to account for in future generations. I wonder who will ultimately be holding the collateral and what will it be worth?

I just did another drive East-bound on “The 10” (that’s Interstate-10 to most people) from Arizona to Texas to go see/visit family. It was like passing a steady parade of UHauls and Ryders headed east, usually pulling a car trailer with the car with Cal plates.

CAGW has already surpassed the criteria necessary for hypothetical disconfirmation, and within 5~7 years, it’ll be laughed at (CAGW global warming projections vs. reality will be off by over 3+ standard deviations for 25 years).

When taxpayers realize the extent of the corruption and propaganda that was used by the Left to keep this hoa-x going, a great number of “progressives” will realize just how destructive Leftist ideology and policies are and will desire less government control, power, spending, and scope.

I hope in the short-term, Leftist will continue to flog the CAGW horse even harder, and implement all these crazy and destructive CAGW policies, because it’ll just make the blowback against the Left that much more severe when this CAGW hoa-x collapses.

I have a suggestion for President elect Trump – let’s do some nuke testing along the San Andres fault, ya know just to get the tiny dicktator of the DPK & whatever happens, just happens. Nevada could use some ocean front property.

Well, I screwed that up & don’t know how to edit it. what I meant was ‘just to get the dicktator of the DPRK’s attention’ – sorry ’bout that. But yeah, lets just let CA fall into the ocean – hopefully after all the sane escape first.

They say in Real Estate that there are three important things. Location, Location, and Location.

California has climate and ocean front property. It is maybe the best place in the US to live. I didn’t say work. I said live.

Just how much of their tax base is centered around very, very, rich people who live there, but derive their income from out of state sources?

I think the real hit that California policy will take will come when the climate cycle comes around, and we enter a cooling stage that is impossible to ignore.

Interestingly, if some of the posters here are right, that cooling is going to happen in the next eight years, or during a Trump presidency. I am expecting to see a huge number of blogs and posts in the coming years ‘denying’ the cooling, and claiming that it is merely President Trump’s lackeys juggling the numbers.

Someone one said “it’s the job of Democrats to break things and it’s the job of Republicans to not fix them”. This cozy relationship maintained the status quo which is what both parties ultimately prefered. That is not what we have now. Ol’ Moonbeam still hasn’t adjusted to the current situation.

“The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.” – ILN, 4/19/24
That’s be GK Chesterton.

He also wrote:
“Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the superlative.” – Chapter 2, Heretics, 1905

I predict that businesses will move out of California to areas where they can actually make a profit. Of course the big stores will survive – Walmart, et al., that is. Workers will move out of state and commute, daily to their jobs in CA but they will pay residence taxation, elsewhere. Loss of money for the city coffers. Look what happened to Detroit for evidence of this particular phenomenon. The American economy is like the horse in animal farm – always undervalued, and worked until it could not work anymore. That is because the trough feeders think that some animals are more equal than others, IMO. Where would these elitist find the funds to finance their utopias without the lowly workers at the bottom, dilligently working themselves into early graves, IMO.

Oh, an article from the New York Times, the #1 site for garbage news and statism (communist) propaganda.

When the government raises the cost for businesses, the businesses have to raise prices on their services and products to stay in business. We consumers pay 100% of the bill the businesses have to pay. Now that is OK if the business has no competition and they are the only game in town. But if that business has competition across state lines and people can buy their products from the local businesses competitor in Texas, they will go out of business.

When it comes to a company making products in California. Why would they stay. Why would the pay a 35% tax rate, high electric cost, a carbon tax and $15-$20 wages when they can go across the border and only pay 22% tax, lower electric cost and only around $3 per hour wage?

Let’s call this the repeat of history of what the British were doing in the 1760’s to the 13 colonies. Britten was purposely placing extreme tax burden the colonies to purposely subjugate them to being nothing more than tax slaves to Britten.

Obviously the democrat supporting frogs in the pot above the fire don’t understand what’s going on. The people throwing the logs on the fire don’t teach American history any more.

By coincidence, I had a conversation last night with a lady who emigrated from CA. She was exceedingly happy to be here and told me several anecdotes about life in CA. One runs into ex- Californians frequently these days and they all have similar stories and all of their stories revolve around opportunities here that were either nonexistent, or severely hampered in CA.

It’s not the climate in California that worries me.
It’s the half-mad\ slobbering with power select band of politicians who’s aim is to insert their brand of cracker-jack science by strong-arming the business community and the public in general.
Brown is just another politician suffering from megalomania.

What do the barking mad Greenies do when their backs are to the wall? Why, they just double and triple down on the madness. Because doing the same thing only more of it, over and over always produces different results.

Pacific Gas & Electric CEO Anthony Early, who is a former chairman of the Edison Electric Institute, has said that PG&E is already halfway there with replacing Diablo Canyon’s output with electricity from renewable energy sources.

Early has said also that he sees no problem with California reaching 50% renewable generation by 2030. Further, he believes that it might even be possible to reach 70% renewable generation in that state, and to do it without backup from nuclear power.

A majority of Californians now believe that the renewables can handle the better part of the job and that placing greater reliance on wind and solar backed by grid-scale energy storage will actually reduce their electric bills.

Speaking as someone who thinks it is impossible to move towards a low-carbon energy future without a strong commitment to nuclear power, I say that no one should stand in the way of the Californians as they do their best to reach 50% renewables by 2030.

If a serious experiment pushing aggressive adoption of the renewables is to be done successfully, some large group of people living in some large region of the United States needs to step up to the challenge and become the pathfinders for figuring out if a renewable energy future either is, or is not, achievable.

If the Californians want the job, and if they are confident they can get it done, then give them the assignment and see what actually happens in their state over the next fifteen to twenty years.

Rogerthesurf, if the US Congress wants to subsidize wind and solar, that’s an environmental variable in the economic landscape of energy production the Californians would certainly be taking account of in deciding how to manage their grand experiment in renewable energy.

If the Californians decide they can’t move forward without federal tax breaks for wind and solar, and without other kinds of federal incentives, then of course the grand experiment has failed pretty much right out of the starting gate.

That’s not to say that California itself, with its considerable economic resources and its strong political support for the renewables, couldn’t or wouldn’t enact its own economic incentives for the adoption of wind and solar technology.

This is by far the better way of doing it, because if the grand experiment is eventually successful, it’s the Californians themselves who will benefit most from having taken the risk of pushing hard for a renewable energy future.

Who said this is an experiment?. This is a political scheme in which a failure would be expensive politically.
In my opinion, should federal funds become available, it is difficult to see how any politician could turn such a source down. That the scheme appears to be successful thats all the politicians would require.

It’s understandable not wanting nuke plants any where near an earthquake zones and that may be why people don’t want them in California. Nuke plants are good but lets keep them in desolate stable places.

“BB, I assume you do not live in California. You have always struck me as a sensible type, so why would you?”

Mark,why the sweeping generalization that anyone living in California is not “sensible”, and likes what’s going on? Many of us are here for completely understandable reasons, it doesn’t mean we like what’s going on, or have any power to change it.

That’s just a politically approach to prevent archeology from shining a light on prehistoric settlement of the amaricas : was it done along the coasts, was it done over the frozen Bering Sea, – was it done twice time?
_____________________________________________

Any sane company will try to reduce the cost of inputs including labour. If you can reduce a cost to zero, that’s the best. Sometimes things aren’t obvious though. Henry Ford discovered that he could save a lot of money by paying his employees twice the going rate.

The benefits were almost immediate. Productivity surged, and the Ford Motor Co. doubled its profits in less than two years. Ford ended up calling it the best cost-cutting move he ever made. link

Things are often different than they look at first glance. Anyway, I never talked about profit without work. If you know how to do that, let me know.

Really Beta, I think your are lying. Please provide a link to the ballot measure.

I worked at a nuke plant in California. The money for the political campaign to close that nuke plant came from Jane Fonda and PG&E.

First off most people do not care how their electricity is produced but they do care about the cost of power. There are a few vocal groups but the are against everything. I would say the ‘majority’ does not care and does not have an opinion until a pollster asks.

Second. power plants are not based on popular vote. I am not against it, it is just not how it’s done. That is really good for California since 1/3rd of the power comes from out of state.

A while back a LA city councilman did not like something said in Arizona and proposed a boycott of Arizona products. An Arizona commissioner said great, we will start by letting California boycott water and power from Arizona.

Since people in California use power, this implies that they both have a say in how it’s produced and accept choices they do not like. If you do not like something, you can challenge it in court. Courts like evidence.

This is no evidence that wind and solar is good for the environment. I have read the environmental impact statements (EIS). Renewable energy is not renewable. Solar panels do not grow in trees.

I am an engineer. Choices have to pass the practical test. Texas has a modest mandate for wind and solar. Over twenty years, the state of Texas will find if wind and solar pass the practical test. The more electricity Texas makes with wind, the more natural gas Texas can sell to California.

Texas also has coal and nuclear. More natural gas Texas can sell to California.

So when nuke plants shut down in California, more natural gas Texas can sell to California.

California has huge natural gas reserves just off shore. Banned long time ago. More natural gas Texas can sell to California.

So it would seem a 50% mandate would be good policy to reduce the more natural gas Texas can sell to California.

For those who live in California and are stuck with stupid, you may want to check how much wind power comes from other states. The jobs and property taxes come out of the pockets of California ratepayers.

So when the CEO of PG&E says no problem what he means is he has no problem tacking on 10% to the mandated costs so the shareholders will give him a nice bonus.

Just for the record and the edification of those outside the US, there many utility CEOs who work hard to keep rates low by making good choices for their customers.

I am an advocate of what makes sense. For example, the US navy uses nuclear propulsion on certain ships because not needed to be refueled provides a tactical advantage.

Since I had lots of nuclear experience from the navy and we were building lots of new commercial nuke plants when I got out of the navy, I stayed in the nuclear field because I enjoyed it and they paid me too.

There are many places where nuclear power is the best practical choice for base load power. It depends on the cost of transportation of fossil.

I am not an advocate of nuclear power to reduce climate change.

I am an advocate of biomass renewable energy where it can be shown to be a more practical choice. For example in the lumber and paper industries, co-generation of power is a good way to dispose of wood waste.

Wind and solar is never a practical way to provide power to the grid. It is never a good for the environment. Is it less bad than coal. I do not think so based on reading many documents on environmental impact.

The fact that engineers can make some power from the impractical is a evidence of our skill as engineers. Maybe it is evidence of our poor communications skill. Wind and solar is a poor solution to a problem that does not exist.

I am an old retired engineer, such as yourself and find this alternative energy makes no sense at all, both economically and environmentally, totally stupid. I am from OZ and try to keep tabs on what is happening in the world.

This governor Brown person in Calibloodyfornia comes across to most right thinking people in the outside world as a dipstick of the worst kind.

My understanding of that state is that it will be destroyed by earthquakes and volcanoes before climate change, whether it be hot or another ice age becomes a problem, these are the things that the governor should be planning for. Governor Brown is Texas greatest asset.